124 replies to this topic

[FrostCollar]

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

FrostCollar: What's the dev team's vision for indirect fire? There are two tools that have specific abilities that help facilitiate it (TAG, NARC) and one piece of equipment that has little purpose except to help protect you from it (AMS), yet the only system that we have with the capability to fire indirectly is the LRM and right now few use them compared to direct fire weapons.
A: For now this is the only indirect fire weapon.

This wasn't quite the answer I was looking for. My main question was what the devs want from indirect fire in general (and LRMs in particular). Since there's so much infrastructure in the game for supporting indirect fire (TAG, NARC, AMS, etc.), is indirect fire supposed to be a key part of a battle? For example, do the devs envision LRM support as something most good teams should have, just yet another long range option along with other weapons, or (as some suggest) a less effective but easier to use long range option? In addition, how do they feel about LRM damage and effectiveness?

I'm still wondering how important indirect fire is supposed to be at launch and by extension how important spotting is supposed to be, which is what I was really hoping would be answered. Given the recent announcement that LRMs are going to fly straighter and presumably be less effective at flying over obstacles, for now I'm assuming "not very."

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

ElLocoMarko, on 17 May 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Krystof - "deaths before win by capture". He is only giving us the winning side.

Well, he did not clearly say what he meant... In fact those numbers don't mean much, as you said.
What is the ratio of cap wins? How does it look on the small maps vs big maps? I guess we'll never know.

[Tennex]

ElLocoMarko: Is the base capture rate for assault mode being assessed.... perhaps to include map size as a factor... ?
A: It’s right about where we want it. See this tweet about the stats - https://twitter.com/...830885091119106


Do these stats take into account the number of minutes every single player spends in a pointless game.

[Thomas Covenant]

Tennex, on 17 May 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

ElLocoMarko: Is the base capture rate for assault mode being assessed.... perhaps to include map size as a factor... ?
A: It’s right about where we want it. See this tweet about the stats - https://twitter.com/...830885091119106


Do these stats take into account the number of minutes every single player spends in a pointless game.

I disagree with their assessment. I think kind of like how flamers max at 90% in the future, controls should be placed on capping; yet I am eager to see how 12 vs 12 might improve this particular situation.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 17 May 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[F0rever]

I am sorry...but the last 3 games i wanted to play it made me crash.it was something about only 128 bites readed from 0.i also crash a lot of times so i hope admins will se this and wont consider it game start farming and exiting.Its a verry big difference.

ok il write the error exactly:

CryEngine Error

FRead did not read expected number of byte from file, only 128 of 0 byteas read


Same bug 5 in a row....even if i made the graphics setup all to medium as it was before.Note: Graphics that i set previously worked for 6-7 games or more


this is the 6 time now

Edited by foreversense, 17 May 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

That capture time answer was lame. I'd really like to see more info released on that metric.


You cannot tell me that having the SAME exact amount of time to capture on Alpine and on River City is working.

You can literally see both caps in River City from the start. How could you possibly balance that using the same timer?

I mean does anyone here have the balls to tell me that makes sense?

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 17 May 2013 - 05:27 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

I'm happy to see a lot of changes being done to weapon balancing and to see that the developers are really focussing on that part of the game at the moment. In my opinion, it's the second most important thing after the game modes, but as PGI has decided not to make any major changes to the game modes, I guess this is the best thing that could happen at this point.

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Adridos: What is the team's stance on the issue of "entry requirements" being raised?
Currently, for a mech to be usable, it needs to get upgraded by DHS, ES and have all it's efficiences skilled up, otherwise it is gimping itself in the match. There are already mentions of expanded pilot trees, epics and such and it may very well become a serious issue. Thus I would like to know the official stance on this.
A: This is entirely subjective. It depends at which level you play at. From my 1 in hundreds of thousands of player view, I can roll into a match with a stock Mech and be very competitive, and get lots of enjoyment. I may not be able to compete for 1^st place all the time, but I can usually place in the top 8 no sweat. Your skill and Elo rating will definitely drive the level of competitive play you will face, and therefore the requirement to bring a more efficient, upgraded `Mech to the match. This is working as intended, and plays nicely in with how a player’s skill and inventory evolve over time.

This seems like a strange thing to say, as others have already pointed out. What does "subjective" mean in this context? But it's working as intended, I guess that answers the question.

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

9erRed: Will future graphical and engine improvements allow for true cover from view, and provide some disruption of fire?
A: We have true cover currently, with exception of some destructible objects like trees.

I don't understand this. Doesn't true cover mean that "if there's a line between the gun and your target without cover, you can hit your target"?

Because if that's what it means, then the game doesn't have true cover. This has already been mentioned in regards to the buildings on River City, but even the hills in Caustic Valley will block shots outside their actual dimensions.

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

TexAss: Why don't we get capture assist bonuses in Conquest?
A: You’re not capturing a base. You’re accumulating resources.

Mr. Ekman, I'm guessing you were pretty tired and/or fed up at this point. It's a thankless job, I get it. But surely you can see that this answer may be seen as a bit... dismissive, or even snappy. Obviously, the guy knows that you're not capturing a base, that's not a real answer. Are you expecting TexAss to follow up next week with "Why don't we get Accumulating Resources bonuses in Conquest"?
The implication of the question - you're a smart man, you must already know this - is the following:
"If you're rewarding players for reaching alternate victory conditions in one game mode, why aren't you doing it in the other? Especially given that Conquest seems to have been designed specifically for gathering resources, as opposed to killing enemy players, it seems counter-intuitive that this game mode doesn't actually reward players who are gathering resources."

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 May 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

That capture time answer was lame. I'd really like to see more info released on that metric.
You cannot tell me that having the SAME exact amount of time to capture on Alpine and on River City is working.
You can literally see both caps in River City from the start. How could you possibly balance that using the same timer?
I mean does anyone here have the balls to tell me that makes sense?

Well, a lot of the answers basically mean "We're happy with it, and we don't feel the need to explain ourselves [again]."
I guess we just have to accept that.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 17 May 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[Deathlike]

The rewards on Conquest doesn't match up with Assault... so go figure.

When you ask a question, it helps to be specific as to what you mean, otherwise it would be translated differently, and you simply will not get the answer you are looking for.

[F0rever]

Can some1 please help me? I cant play the game annymore...i have a thread a bit more up

[Deathlike]

Thontor, on 17 May 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

They aren't too far off... at least for me

Mode Name_____XP/Match____CB/Match
Assault____________751_____120,020
Conquest___________673_____125,896

XP per match, Assault has a pretty clear advantage... yet Conquest has a slight advantage in c-blls per match

I did some math, and you're correct. I wish they did the math for you...

foreversense, on 17 May 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

I am sorry...but the last 3 games i wanted to play it made me crash.it was something about only 128 bites readed from 0.i also crash a lot of times so i hope admins will se this and wont consider it game start farming and exiting.Its a verry big difference.

ok il write the error exactly:

CryEngine Error

FRead did not read expected number of byte from file, only 128 of 0 byteas read


Same bug 5 in a row....even if i made the graphics setup all to medium as it was before.Note: Graphics that i set previously worked for 6-7 games or more


this is the 6 time now

Use the MWO Repair Tool.
http://mwomercs.com/...public-release/

[carl kerensky]

Sparkymarkyp: Are more damage textures going to be added to mech in the future? i.e. dents, bullet holes, armour panels blown away, sparking internals fires etc
[color=#959595]A: For performance reasons, we have opted to reduce the amount of detail currently available. As time goes one, and players update their equipment, we can explore adding back in more fidelity.[/color]

This is disheartening to hear and this answers a question I have asked all along. Why has this game graphically regressed? Now I know why. I remember when the beta first got released how awesome the damage effects were and the mechs themselves looked more realistic. I remember seeing a hunchback for the first time. It looked amazing. Dismemberment effects were incredible. Parts would fly. Now its going backwards. If its performance issues why not make the high fidelity damage and graphics available to those that have the horsepower to run it? To me the mechs now look cartoonish rather metal. All those little details add SO MUCH to immersion for me. Now its going backwards? Give me the choice of upping the detail. Right I think its a poor decision not to improve in this area.
Ck

[hammerreborn]

Ramsess, on 17 May 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

ElLocoMarko: Is the base capture rate for assault mode being assessed.... perhaps to include map size as a factor... ?
A: It’s right about where we want it. See this tweet about the stats - https://twitter.com/...830885091119106

Wow so as per the Twitter info... 40%!!!! of games end by cap after 3 ppl die...wooooo that's nothing to be worried about.... even 10% at 0 deaths is stupid high....

19% of all games end in capture.

Oh those, those are the percentages of how many people are dead before a capture is made (i.e. the great majority of captures happen with more than 3 deaths on the losing).

It's unclear which side has the deaths, going to guess the losing, but it's clear its based on one team because 10% of 19% is 1.9%, and only 1.2% of all matches end in 0 deaths total. I also assume it's loser team because one of Bryan's earlier tweets stated that most of the capture games end with 7 deaths on the losing team, and 26% is by far the largest number in that list (and nearly twice as common as if there was an even distribution overall).

It's also clear it's a single team because it only goes up to 7 deaths.


EDIT: IT's loser

Quote

Interesting stat - 19% of Assault wins come from Base Caps. 81% of Assault victories come from destroying the opposition.

Quote

[color="#0066cc"]Bryan Ekman‏@bryanekman25 Apr[/color]
@mishagale 26% of win cap matches end with the losing team having 7 deaths.

Edited by hammerreborn, 17 May 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[Koniving]

Deathlike, on 17 May 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I facepalmed when I read "stock mech" and "competitive" in the same sentence, when the Trial Jagermech-S is an abomination.

I had 2 kills in my first match with one. I play stock rigs every time I buy a new mech, and earn a minimum of 8,000 XP before I start unlocking the basics or changing the loadout (for the PB I went up to 24,000 because the stock build was just right up my alley). It's called play the role. You are ranged direct fire support. Personally I spent my time using friendly stalkers as bullet sponges. That helps.


Some examples:

Spoiler

Hunchback 4H default rig. 691 damage. Pre Ballistic HSR, pre Raven detection fixes.


My first run with the trial Jager 6A. Unintentionally done, but still worked well.


Default Fang doing what Dragons should never do. Brawl.


Hunchback 4G default rig. Pre-Ballistics HSR. Click here (time skips accidental loop in loadout part). 3 matches. First one I get 4 kills, 3 of those after losing my Hunch (which I did within the first 2 minutes of the match). 551 damage.

Default Misery.

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Koniving: Will it be possible for flamers to emit a field of smoke? Or any smoke effects?
A: I’ll let the BT/science wizzes comment, but I’m pretty sure it’s engine plasma, which does not really create smoke until it contacts with a surface.

I mainly use flamers to blind my prey since they aren't worth much else. However I saw that there's flamer tweaks coming. Hope it helps. Though sciencey or not, I think smoke generation would be cool. Will probably appear as a consumable. MGs usable to actively try and shoot down missiles would also be neat. Right now what really hurts them is that engines can't be crit-damaged.


---------------

Back to Deathlike:



I'm sure you know already, but my mech collection is extensive. The 8T still runs stock (until I can record some test runs with the new missile balances). Atlas K and Atlas RS are still running stock too.

Edited by Koniving, 17 May 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[aniviron]

BlueSanta, on 17 May 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

SHS are inferior to DHS by design and that is how it should be. What people complain about is the price of installing them.

As much as I liked RnR as a balancing mechanic at low-level play, it becomes obsolete as players progress through the game. DHS vs SHS has the same problem- if there is no choice to be made, why are both options in the game? It's an engaging mechanic for a while, but a better game mechanic is engaging forever.

[Monsoon]

Bryan Ekman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Razgriz Gundam: How will the relationship between the Lyran Commonwealth, and the Federated Suns work in community warfare?
A: They will be allied for now.

Scromboid: Will there be any more 'Founders Type' sales? For clan invasion or release, maybe?
A: You never know.

I asked that question on the FedCom's relationship months ago, glad to see it sort of answered...

Interesting, not a flat out denial of a possible Clan Founder's package.

Can I request one with the Daishi, Masakari, Vulture and Blackhawk?
(and yes as a Inner Spherer, I go by the IS names for them.)

[Monsoon]

hammerreborn, on 17 May 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

It's unclear which side has the deaths, going to guess the losing, but it's clear its based on one team because 10% of 19% is 1.9%, and only 1.2% of all matches end in 0 deaths total. I also assume it's loser team because one of Bryan's earlier tweets stated that most of the capture games end with 7 deaths on the losing team, and 26% is by far the largest number in that list (and nearly twice as common as if there was an even distribution overall).

It's also clear it's a single team because it only goes up to 7 deaths.


EDIT: IT's loser

Makes total sense to me, the amount of times that a losing team has 7 death and the last mech is either a very fast Light running away or any other mech finding a spot to hide (like in the cave in Forest Colony) and shutting down is quite common.

[Grimmnyr]

3rd person in game, even as a spectator when you are dead, will be an unreasonable advantage. People will suicide so they can spectate for their team. This will especially be a huge advantage over people who play solo and don't use VOIP. Solo people should be even more upset about this than us players who want you to stick to your word and keep this a first-person game. Don't get me wrong, I want the game to do well, and I understand your business model, but your business model does include retaining current players, so don't let us down.

Edited by Ed Steele, 17 May 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Excellent.

[Thomas Covenant]

Thanks dev team.

[3Xtr3m3]

Thank You for the answer Bryan.
I can appreciate the risks and rewards of tweaking the game mechanics.
I can forsee it as a great CW immersion enhancer (down the road).